Deal or no deal; what we can expect the day after the election

With just four months left until voting day, and with current polling trends suggesting no party is in a position to claim a majority, it’s time to turn our attention to what happens the day after.

Laying the groundwork for the post-election negotiations that could determine the shape of the next government — and choose the next tenant of 24 Sussex — requires time, thought and planning. Are the party leaders ready? You wouldn’t know it from the way they’ve been talking.

Politicians hate hypothetical questions, particularly ones based on the premise of a minority or coalition government. NDP Leader Tom Mulcair continues to state he’ll do whatever he can to get rid of the Harper government, while Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau has said, at various points, that he will or won’t consider a coalition. Nobody’s been asking Prime Minister Stephen Harper yet, but you can bet it’s on his mind as well.

No matter what anyone says between now and October 19, all bets are off the morning of October 20. That’s when the party leaders will be counting heads and working out which party is in a position to govern, and what kind of deals it will have to make to secure power.

Regardless of where the Conservatives finish, Harper, as prime minister, has the right to meet the House and see if he can win the support of a majority of MPs for his legislative agenda, as laid out in the throne speech. If the Conservatives win less than 170 seats on October 19, Harper would need the help of members of other parties to govern — the most obvious candidates being fiscal conservatives within the Liberal caucus. This scenario becomes likelier if the Liberals finish third and the alternative is an NDP-led government.

Fiscally-conservative Liberals might be unwilling to support NDP economic policies. Other Liberals might simply worry that supporting the NDP would be the first step in being absorbed by it; the ultimate result could be a realignment of the major parties — one on the right (the Conservatives) and one on the left (the NDP).

The more plausible scenario sees the NDP and Liberals making a deal with each other — either because one of the parties finishes first but short of a majority, or because the two parties finish second and third but together control a majority of seats. If Liberals and New Democrats vote down a Conservative throne speech, they’ll need to make it clear to the governor general that they can work together and provide Canada with a stable government that lasts at least 18 months. Otherwise, the GG could — following Harper’s resignation as prime minister — choose to call another election.

Forget about what the party leaders are saying, or not saying, about coalition government. Instead, look closely at their platforms and see where there is common ground.

The shape of any NDP-Liberal agreement would depend on where the parties place in the final vote, the difference in seat count between their caucuses, each party’s percentage of the total number of votes cast and the geographic distribution of each party’s MPs. (The example of the Ontario provincial election of 1985 is an obvious guide to how that might play out; more on that later.)

Those negotiations could be tough. There may be a lot of shared support between the New Democrats and Liberals among party members, but between the MPs themselves there’s a decade of animosity built up on the opposition benches. Chances are, though, Mulcair and Trudeau would have to swallow their mutual dislike and come to an agreement. Their own supporters would demand it, if the alternative was a continuation of the Harper government.

Negotiations probably wouldn’t be conducted by the party leaders anyway. They’d likely appoint caucus members to conduct the talks — MPs the leaders trust, are experienced parliamentarians and are seen as credible by their parties and the rest of the Commons. Who fits the bill?

For the Liberals, possibly Ralph Goodale, Marc Garneau or Domenic LeBlanc. For the NDP — Paul Dewar, Linda Duncan, Jack Harris or Craig Scott? Harper’s preference for absolute caucus control and his government’s pugilistic style makes it a bit harder to come up with likely negotiators, but Lisa Raitt, Erin O’Toole or Rob Nicholson might serve. The caucuses also could call on recently retired MPs, or those not running in 2015.

So much for how the parties would negotiate. What would they negotiate? The likeliest scenario has the negotiating partners agreeing on a plan of action — a series of measures the governing party would agree to implement within a stated period of time.

Which brings us back to Ontario in 1985. Back then, the provincial Liberals and NDP had some similar pledges in their election platforms. Both had promised to introduce freedom of information legislation, to give legislative committees more power, to set up a legislature committee to oversee Ontario Hydro and to introduce election spending and campaign financing limits. They also promised to begin public funding of Catholic public and secondary schools and to introduce tougher environmental laws.

Those common elements became the basis for an agreement under which the NDP would support a Liberal government for two years while it implemented their shared platform. Had anyone tried to challenge the arrangement, the parties had a response ready: between them, they had captured 61.7 per cent of the vote on election day. So a clear majority of the province’s voters had backed their joint program — giving them the legitimacy they needed to proceed.

So forget about what the party leaders are saying, or not saying, about coalition government. Instead, look closely at their platforms and see where there is common ground. Between now and the election we’re going to be hearing a lot about where the parties oppose each other; afterward, the conversation could switch very quickly to where they agree.

And that, more than anything the leaders are saying now, will give you an idea of what the next federal government could look like.

Christopher Waddell is an associate professor and director of Carleton University’s School of Journalism and Communication in Ottawa. He also holds the school’s Carty Chair in Business and Financial Journalism. He is a veteran of the CBC and Globe and Mail newsrooms and now works with iPolitics as an associate editor.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.

36 comments on “Deal or no deal; what we can expect the day after the election”

What? Only 65%?? Are you sure?
On another note, I was speaking to two young people at different times in town, neither was familiar with #Reject Fear – #No-C51 (taped on my car windows). They asked, I explained, they were both shocked, hadn’t heard anything about C-51 or half the crap the THuGs have shoved through. (Thank you msm)! When we were finished our chats, they both were incensed, going to research both the bill, and Harper’s misdeeds. (i had told them lists wouldn’t be hard to find). Both are 18, going to school in Sept. I explained that we were very worried b/c we’d heard young ppl weren’t interested….. They both planned to pass on the info and get the word out that the young folks need to vote!

You know what Cheena… i searched for info on the C-51 rallies because I don’t have TV.
And the Toronto Sun had a short article on it, CTV had an article on it (which I didn’t find till a day or two after it happened) along with more detailed explanations on progressive sites like Huffington Post, Tyee, and National Observer.
But, unless I missed something, there was no acknowledgement of it happening on CBC.
I have a Conservative friend who I was trying to explain it to, who has issues with Harper, but still told me he’ll “probably vote Conservative.”
Certain people like my friend just think as soon as Stephen Harper put on the Conservative blue jacket and left his Reform Party jacket at the thrift store, he was automatically moderate, and they stopped paying attention ever since.
So CBC says not a word, and to him that confirms that the rest of us are a bunch of extremists and Rocco Galati is a loud-mouthed shnook.
So I think people of all ages have no clue anything is happening.
I think that’s awesome that you got the ball rolling with those kids. U.R. Gr8.

CBC saying not a word proves that the President and 11(or 9 or 10) of the 12 Directors appointed by Harper are doing Harper’s work. Starting to look like CBC needs to be scrapped and remade in the image it was supposed to be. It is now proven by the actions of the so called journalists that most of them are in it for the money and celebrity never mind principles and ethics.

I searched all that weekend and the big story that kept showing up on CBC was a woman from the national arts council parking in a handicapped space.
The Toronto Sun can explain exactly what Rocco Galati said, but CBC is about the rage over a parking spot, FIFA and lifestyle stories?
Sure the other stuff is okay, but the Toronto Sun includes it, and it doesn’t even make a mention on the national broadcaster?
Ian Morrison was 100% right about it turning into a state broadcaster, unfortunately.
CBC becomes Pravda light, science research thrown into dumpsters, and 30% of us just go on our merry way thinking all is swell.

I remember the Vote Compass, where the policies and/or values of the parties were shown on a graph.
All the parties’ green/red/orange, etc. dots were generally in the same area, except for the Conservatives, which were in a completely different part of the graph, almost completely opposite to the rest.
Which makes me feel really ill when I see NDPers and Liberals who despise each other so much that the sneer of disgust curls on their lips as soon as the other party’s name comes up.
In traditional aboriginal culture, you put aside your animosity to work together for the best of the people, then after you work out a consensus, you can go back to hating each other’s guts and sneer and punch each other out all you want.
But the people have to come first.
So if these guys who share dot space on the graph can’t stand the one millimetre difference between their dot and the other guy/gal’s dot, so the blue dots rule once more, they’re not following our traditional Canadian consensus model.
I hope that Chris is right and they’ll pull all their dots together in the Fall, for the sake of all of us who aren’t CEOs of corporations.

I thought those criticisms, personally, were dumb.
I read all the complaints and just heard a grandfather clock ringing thrice…. “Dumbbb……Dumbbb….. Dumbbb…..”
It was designed on whether you agreed with the party’s policies, so they asked if you agreed with the policies.
My Conservative-voting friend in Alberta was ticked, but for him it was like someone telling you you shouldn’t like your sports team.
I didn’t think the criticisms were much different than the over-the-top blowups that online trolls have on every possible issue.
I was surprised though that I was GREEN when I vote between red and orange.
IT MUST BE A CONSPIRACY and I should blow up at someone, maybe my niece’s cat.

He was telling me it said “everyone is Liberal!!!!!!!!” without even taking it.
So he took it on the phone while we were talking and I think it said he was Conservative mainly, but I thought he was being over the top to get that result.
When he’s not blowing up, he sounds yes…..like a LIBERAL!!!!!!
CALL THE COPS… AND I DON’T MEAN SHEILA

He was filling it out in anger, and supposedly anger and fear tie into voting more right-wing.
But if you talk to him generally, he’s a lot more subtle about grey areas and stuff and doesn’t sound very right-wing.
But it’s not that different from people who get into fistfights after the hockey game because the drunks across the aisle said your team sucks.
And did I mention he’s from Alberta… it’s almost a tribal thing there to vote Conservative, though Peter Lougheed might be more similar to Tom Mulcair than anybody in the federal party today.

Who would have thought in a million years that Alberta would go progressive and vote NDP? Who? Change is coming whether some like it or not. Corporatists are ruling and any bit of power we can take from them helps. And if there are enough little bites out of their corporate plan around the world they can be stopped or slowed down. There was a picture in the magazine Ad Busters many many years ago and it showed each country with a Logo on it. Canada was no longer Canada but Texaco. The U.S. was no longer the U.S. but Exon. U.K. was no longer U.K. but B. P. and on and on. I believe that we are in the process of seeing the beginning of world domination by corporation and the politicians are ‘just’ the enablers and will some day not even be needed. If the people rise up they can be stopped.

Nellie, It’s interesting what you tell about the AdBusters story…and all too scary!
Re Alberta, if one was paying very close attention, and I mean VERY close for sometime now, it was not at all hard to imagine this upset.
The MSM have done everything in their formidable power to make us believe their tired narrative about the
unstoppable force of Prentice, the strength of the oil/gas industry, etc.
But for those of us reading everything it was quite clear that Prentice was running very much on borrowed
time and no one was buying the hype about him.
It was clear that Albertans were sick to death of being defined by Harper.
So much has come to light for them, they have been amassing and rising up, if you will, for a long while.
Harper, the press, pundits and God knows the lobbyists have gone to the ends of the Earth to try to dupe us, play us for idiots.
I swear people are paying more attention than ever before in our history.
And they are doing so with an informed mind, and a passion that cannot be subdued or manipulated
by even the best in the press to say nothing of those who are less than credible anymore.
It doesn’t matter anymore who you are, how tight you are with whomever,
or how much you try to woo us,
everyone is under a level of scrutiny long overdue.
Money and fear and greed simply don’t cut it anymore.
A new era of a caring society fighting to rebuild and become strong once again has begun.
In a little off side but an issue I care deeply about…anyone notice how profoundly the press, including this site, have been ignoring Couillard and his entire presence?
Who knew he was hosting a three day environmental conference on the Great Lakes?
Nary a word anywhere!!! It’s truly alarming that he has been so sidelined by the entire press.
His voice is one for which many have respect.
Cheers!

I do believe the magical number nine is hitting and people are sick of the government.
I don’t care what the propagandists and trolls say, Notley did give Mulcair a boost because though he’s respected, her win helped diminish the NDP=Boogeyman thing they keep trying to push.
We had NDP for ten years in BC and really, to distinguish between them and other governments was pretty subtle.
I spent some formative years growing up in Alberta and people aren’t necessarily deeply right-wing, they just vote Conservative, as weird as that sounds.
Southern Alberta has a few more obvious bigots, but generally people are as Canadian as anywhere (though rich Alberta tourists aren’t very loved in my part of BC).
I didn’t know Couillard was doing a conference like that, out here I’ve heard more about PKP than anything about the premier, thanks for telling me.
He does seem like a very decent person, but like you said, I’ve heard very little about him.

Hi Super Yeti
It’s an important conference involving the American Governors and Wynne and others about the Great Lakes. Absolutely buried, in fact, CBC on line or CBCNN have not even mentioned it!
Couillard is a deeply respected man and he’s going to be a formidable person for Mulcair to tussle with over not only the Senate, but other issues.
He’s a neurosurgeon, as you probably know. That’s a profession with NO
margin of error! so he’s well equipped to deal with the heat.
In my lifetime of following politics I cannot recall any one politician being so dramatically
snubbed by the press. Some journalists have shrugged on camera when his name comes up!
All very interesting.
Quebec is always forever interesting!

How weird!
I thought he seemed peaceful and impressive when he ran against Pauline.
Then I’ve heard nary a word about him other than some students thought he was a jerk. They kind of made out like he was this incredibly blah, nothing to say anything about, guy with a beard.
Thanks for bringing it up.
My theory is… and it could be totally wrong… but the concentrated media so desires to keep Harper in that they wish to keep up the divide and conquer atmosphere, so they give a lot more press to PKP. The perpetually enraged trolls on CBC were all saying, “OH BROTHER, HERE WE GO AGAIN!!” and “WHY DON’T THEY JUST LEAVE ALREADY!!”
I hope when the next people take over from Harper, they not only give us proportional representation, they make a strong rule on concentration of media ownership.
The MSM sticks to their script of chaos because I think a calm and stable Quebec doesn’t keep everyone divided so their man can come up the middle on his blue horse.

The Harper years will be known as the ‘Dark Ages’ of Canadian politics – truly the worst P.M. in history. This is the most secretive and un-democratic government in Canada ever – a government that suppress votes and breaks election laws.

My fear is that this government has spent a decade taking over that ground on secrecy and unaccountability. But there’s no upside for the leaders of other parties to give that back if Canadians clearly don’t seem to give a rats rump about it. And, I say this with my heart quite broken, Canadians are far more worried about Caitlyn Jenner (a.k.a Bruce) and what next years NHL salary cap will be than they are their basic rights not to be arrested and detained because they are a little vocal in demanding clean water. This is not a partisan issue anymore. All parties have abandoned Canadians when it comes to preserving those most sacred freedoms. It’s like we’re back in the McCarthyist 1950s again, and we have let it happen. The Harper government is a symptom of something far, far worse of our own creation. We are the Alex P. Keaton generation and our he-who-has-the-most-toys-wins approach to life has given us broken communities and far too little empathy. #heavesteve, it would be great if that were the real problem. It isn’t…. We all see that person in the mirror every morning, we just don’t confront him or her.

I agree, the corporations have taken us over by stealth, and Donald Gutstein says they’ve been planning it for decades (if you haven’t read his book Not A Conspiracy Theory).
But still…. in every election, the majority of voters vote for policies that are the complete opposite of Steve’s.
So yeah, we are focused on toys, but the stupid unrepresentative voting system makes it easier for the toy-focused to stay that way, I think.

This year, both the Cons and Libs are offering big money to families who vote for them. The fact that some are still willing to vote otherwise despite that enticement is a good sign, but then again, this is not October.

First and foremost, no matter what they may be shovelling at the moment…”plan for fairness”, “tax breaks for families”, “15$ a day childcare”, etc…our parties and politicians are just that first and foremost – politicians….and they ALL have only TWO things on their minds and it ain’t either of us….

It’s the toys and the ‘silliness’ that is so upsetting. 30 year olds acting like teens is upsetting. Groups of people walking down the street and all of them looking at their phones to see if anyone has texted them. Mothers pushing strollers and a little one tagging along but the mother is looking at her phone or the kids are in the sandbox at the park and the mother is looking at her phone. Texting and cell phone use and ‘coffee’ drinkers causing accidents which sometimes means death. It is jaw dropping to watch and hear young kids texting and being mean to each other with words and bullying each other online and on and on and on. That is what they are calling fun. It is very sad for all of us because they are missing so much but what is really really sad is that they are absorbed in communicating with themselves so much that ‘nothing’ else matters. They are not having fun and they are not maturing in the correct way. Good Luck to them when they realize the enormity of change that happened while they were ‘playing’. I know believe me I know they aren’t all like that but come on we know there are a lot of them ….. just look out the window and watch them walk by or drive by you in the car.

Absolutely true, and it’s particularly poignant when you see, as you note and I have seen often, a mother fiddling with her gadget or phone while the child grows up in front of her, not getting the full attention they deserve. Just saw another one last week – mother was blabbing blithely on the phone while her 1.5 year old child was stuck in a stroller – writhing, hot, hungry and crying, Mom paid no mind but kept to her conversation. Disgusting.

Young people get together at a restaurant, order their food, and then bring out the smartphones. They sit across from each other but are transfixed on their gadgets.

Students in classes can’t be bothered to stop playing with their little machines, even when interesting activities – also visual, multi-media – are being shown to enhance their learning.

And as many have said, there was great hope with the advance of the internet that all that potential knowledge at our fingertips would make us smarter. Fat chance. People know about celebrities’ intimate life stories but nothing about their own country.

We are far too spoiled and anti-intellectual as a nation, more like the US than we have ever been. I don’t see educational and personal standards improving much, despite some compassionate and civil society programming. Maybe we can try with the newest generations, but the Y and Z generations probably can’t turn back now.